G'day all

A number of papers over the last few years (within the conservation biology
literature mainly - rathert han EE) have discussed the level at which we
ought to be managing the environment.

The rise of landscape ecology (premised itself on a paradigm shift in
ecology away from Clementsian ideas of determinism to a climax - and limited
stasis around these equilibria) has focused efforts on the issue of
"emergence" within environmental systems - one level of heirarchy cannot
explain all of the issues in the level above (the reductionist argument) -
chemistry, genes, individual behaviour, species, ecosystems, landscape
[which incorporate people and their drivers - sociology etc.]).  The
corollary of a more holistic approach includes an acceptance that we can
manage for species, *within* the framework of a landscape ecology approach.
Ecosystem management (or the "ecosystem approach") is the mechanism by which
these ideas are manifested in action.  It includes a number of perspectives
including the inclusion of people (with issues of social equity, humans as
integral to landscapes, etc - with more corollaries, including that
sans-human reserves are but one of many approaches, and that humans do not
necessarily "harm"), adaptive management, a systems perspective, the
importance of values moving away from the purely utilitarian, etc. etc.
Also ideas of what constitutes a desirable landscape outcome - whatever you
want to call it - "health", "integrity", etc.

I would call this an ecocentric approach (though one where humans are
integral to these landscapes, rather than outsiders), from an ethical
perspective - but perhaps I am wrong.  Its primary perspective of management
(the ethical framework of action) is the landscape/ecosystem level.  This
does not preclude obligations to either species or individuals - or issues
of social equity of local communities (which often seems to be presented as
a mutually exclusive goal from some preservationists).  Individual
management actions (read "ethical actions") are almost always focused at a
heirarchical level below the landscape - removing a tree, or animal; digging
a hole, etc., etc.  The ecosystem approach suggests (I think) that the
obligation at these levels remain, though any ethical consideration should
also be mindful of the wider whole, and should not "harm" the wider whole.

Point of exchange: In this way the ethical obligations are also heirachical.
Aside from the problem of what constitutes "harm", are there any other
problems with it?  Can we have nested heirarchies of concerns in the same
way that a landscape or ecosystem has nested heirarchies of issues?  Is a
duty focus on the individual necessarily at odds with a greater concern to
the landscape?

Have others considered the ideas expressed within landscape ecology from an
ethical perspective?  I think it represents a profound shift in our ideas of
what *is* nature - and therefore of critical importance to environmental
ethics.

Chris Perley